[go: up one dir, main page]

WO2010090730A1 - Procédé, appareil et logiciel pour identifier des sujets réactifs dans un environnement clinique - Google Patents

Procédé, appareil et logiciel pour identifier des sujets réactifs dans un environnement clinique Download PDF

Info

Publication number
WO2010090730A1
WO2010090730A1 PCT/US2010/000298 US2010000298W WO2010090730A1 WO 2010090730 A1 WO2010090730 A1 WO 2010090730A1 US 2010000298 W US2010000298 W US 2010000298W WO 2010090730 A1 WO2010090730 A1 WO 2010090730A1
Authority
WO
WIPO (PCT)
Prior art keywords
treatment
subjects
baseline
measurements
during
Prior art date
Legal status (The legal status is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the status listed.)
Ceased
Application number
PCT/US2010/000298
Other languages
English (en)
Inventor
Ron Cohen
Andrew R. Blight
Lawrence Marinucci
Current Assignee (The listed assignees may be inaccurate. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation or warranty as to the accuracy of the list.)
Acorda Therapeutics Inc
Original Assignee
Acorda Therapeutics Inc
Priority date (The priority date is an assumption and is not a legal conclusion. Google has not performed a legal analysis and makes no representation as to the accuracy of the date listed.)
Filing date
Publication date
Application filed by Acorda Therapeutics Inc filed Critical Acorda Therapeutics Inc
Publication of WO2010090730A1 publication Critical patent/WO2010090730A1/fr
Anticipated expiration legal-status Critical
Ceased legal-status Critical Current

Links

Classifications

    • G—PHYSICS
    • G16—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATION FIELDS
    • G16H—HEALTHCARE INFORMATICS, i.e. INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR THE HANDLING OR PROCESSING OF MEDICAL OR HEALTHCARE DATA
    • G16H10/00—ICT specially adapted for the handling or processing of patient-related medical or healthcare data
    • G16H10/20—ICT specially adapted for the handling or processing of patient-related medical or healthcare data for electronic clinical trials or questionnaires

Definitions

  • This invention relates to a method, apparatus, and computer software application that can be used to analyze therapeutic effect of a treatment of patients in a clinical environment.
  • the present invention may be utilized to analyze the response of patients in a clinical environment for many different types of afflictions, including, but not limited to, neurological disorders such as multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injuries, Alzheimer's disease and ALS.
  • One embodiment of the present invention relates to a method, apparatus and software program for analyzing clinical patient treatment data in order to predict future clinical trials.
  • Another embodiment of the present invention relates to a method, apparatus and software program for analyzing clinical patient treatment data in order to derive value from completed clinical trials, regardless of the outcome of the particular trial.
  • Another embodiment of the present invention relates to a method, apparatus and software program for selecting individuals based on responsiveness to a treatment.
  • the method comprises identifying a plurality of individuals; administering a test to each individual prior to a treatment period; administering a treatment to one or more of the individuals during the treatment period; administering the test a plurality of times to each individual during the treatment period; and selecting one or more individuals, wherein the selected individuals exhibit an improved performance during a majority of the tests administered during the treatment period as compared to the test administered prior to the treatment period.
  • the method may further comprise administering the test to each individual after the treatment period, wherein the selected individuals further exhibit an improved performance during a majority of the tests administered during the treatment period as compared to the test administered after the treatment period.
  • a further embodiment relates to a method of selecting individuals based on responsiveness to a treatment, the method comprising identifying a plurality of individuals; administering a test to each individual prior to a treatment period; administering a treatment to one or more of the individuals during the treatment period; administering the test a plurality of times to each individual during the treatment period; administering the test to each individual after the treatment period; and selecting one or more individuals, wherein the selected individuals exhibit an improved performance during a majority of the tests administered during the treatment pcriod as coinpai cd to the better per foi maiicc of the test administer ccl pi 101 to the ti calmenl pci iod and tlic test aclministerecl after the treatment period
  • Figure 1 is an exemplary flow diagram showing one way in which the inventive process may be put forth in a computer aided embodiment so treatment data from a clinical trial of a given n ⁇ mber of patients may analyzed to determine the iesponders therein,
  • Figure 2 is an exemplaiy flow diagram showing one way in which the probability distribution generation of the inventive process may be put forth in a computer aided embodiment tn Older to offer a comparative baseline against responder values,
  • Figure 3 is a generalized system level block diagram of an exemplary system employing the inventive process described herein, and
  • Figures 4 (a) — 4 (d) are histograms and distribution graphs of responder and non- responder populations shown in the context of the an illustrative utilization of the present invention
  • Software means all forms of electronically executable code, iegardless of the language employed for coding, specific system architecture coded for, and regardless of storage medium utilized (disk, download ASP, etc )
  • ect” mean all animals including humans Examples of patients or subjects include humans, cows, dogs, cats, goats, sheep, rats, pigs, etc
  • One aspect of the invention therefore relates to a process of providing foi the above mentioned fiequency to be compared between treatment and control groups, as well as with the predictions ot a simple computer model based on random number generation Hence, if there aiey measurements made during treatment and /c measurements made during the non- treatment period, a computer model can be generated that will predict the frequency with which a given subset of the / measurements will exceed the largest of the k off treatment measurements. This is effectuated by using the method and the computer program of the present invention to generate many thousands of stiings of j+k random numbers within a preset range and testing the frequency with which numbers in they set exceed all numbers in the k set Over the course of many thousand iterations, it will be possible to determine the probability that 1 ,2,3 j of the / set will exceed all the k set within any one iteration
  • the clinical trial data may also be compared to the piobabihty distribution from the computer model to check that the probability distribution of the comparator data is similar to the random number model and that there is not a profound deviation from the predictions of the model that would indicate a tieatment-penod telated effect that was independent of tieatment
  • the criterion for response can be established by comparison of the treated and comparator distributions, then in subsequent studies this criterion can be used to identify the numbers of people who appear to respond to tieatment in the actively treated and comparator oi placebo-treated groups and the significance of differences in response rate can be determined by straightforwaid statistical testing of those frequency When configured ds such, the characteristics of the response to treatment of the responder group can also then be examined, undiluted by the non-responder population.
  • the broadest aspect of the invention may be detailed as compiising a method, a method instantiated or executed on an electronic apparatus such as a computer, and/or a computer readable medium executing the following steps of identiiying a plurality of records relating to patients in a clinical database, said records compiising measurements for patients relating to tests administered during an off- treatment period and an on-trealment pcriod, identifying at least one test in said plurality of recoids relating to measurements of each individual during an off-tieatment period, identifying at least one test in said plurality of records relating to measurements of each individual during an on-treatment period, identifying a baseline measuiement of each individual during said off- tieatment period, performing a statistical distribution on said plurality of records to identify likelihood of said ⁇ -treatment and said off-treatment measurements exceeding said baseline so as to compare said measurements with said baseline, and selecting one oi more individuals ("responders"), wherein the
  • the invention may take the form of a computer readable medium for executing the above detailed steps, or alternatively, may comprise a computer based system for selecting individuals based on responsiveness to a treatment, comprising: a memory module for storing patient measurements, and for storing at least a first set of instructions relating to the inputting and analyzing of said patient measurements, and a second set of instructions for outputting responder information from said patient measurements; a central processing unit for executing said first and second set of instructions; and an output module for outputting said responder information.
  • Figs. 1 , 2, and 3 is an exemplary depiction of the inventive process in: a generalized flow diagram (Fig. l )(showing steps 100 through 130, with optional resets for re-designing or re-conducting the process so as to reset undesirable results); a generalized flow diagram on one approach to generating a specialized, unique statistical distribution (e.g., step 1 14 of Fig. 1 ) used within the overall process (e.g., steps 100-130) in Fig. 1 ; and an exemplary hardware (apparatus) configuration (Fig. 3), upon which the exemplary flow processes in Figs. 1 and 2 are executed by the inventive software.
  • a generalized flow diagram FIG. l
  • a generalized flow diagram on one approach to generating a specialized, unique statistical distribution (e.g., step 1 14 of Fig. 1 ) used within the overall process (e.g., steps 100-130) in Fig. 1
  • an exemplary hardware (apparatus) configuration Fig. 3
  • the inventive software for executing the above described processes, and for analyzing inputted data, outputs useful information such as responder data.
  • the inventive software and process may be embodied in computer any manner of readable code, and may be contained on any computer readable medium, such as a hard drive (whether PC based, or remote server), disk, CD, etc.
  • the measurements of the patients P are formatted as signals that may be received by the apparatus of Figure 3 so that the inventive process and software may be transformed into useful outputs for a user.
  • This outputted information may be received by the apparatus in order to be processed and analyzed by the inventive process for use by a user who may receive the outputted signals that have been formed by the steps described herein.
  • the technical effect is such that when the signals are processed in accordance with the above, the tangible, useful result is that clinical trials may be better planned and/or analyzed by researchers who may identify responders to a given treatment for an affliction of almost any nature in ways that were not available heretofore.
  • the included figures are merely illustrative, and may be reconfigured or revised in many different ways, as one skilled in the art may appreciate.
  • a method of analyzing the treatment of an illustrative affliction such as multiple sclerosis.
  • the goal might be to employ (he general inventive process and software described herein to show the results of a completed clinical study, or otherwise structure a future clinical study that aims to identify respond ⁇ rs from a group of patients who receive a given exemplary treatment.
  • many indicators may be employed, but in the exemplary illustration indicated in the attached Appendices A, B, C, D and E (each of which is hereby explicitly incorporated by reference in their entireties), such indicators may be such specific measurements as increased walking speed in patients, or increased muscle tone or muscle strength in patients.
  • the present invention provides for a method of selecting individuals based on responsiveness to a treatment.
  • the method comprises identifying a plurality of individuals; administering a test to each individual prior to a treatment period; administering a treatment, including, but not limited to administering a therapeutic agent or drug, to one or more of the individuals during the treatment period; administering the test a plurality of times to each individual during the treatment period; and selecting one or more individuals, wherein the selected individuals exhibit an improved performance during a majority of the tests administered during the treatment period as compared to the test administered prior to the treatment period.
  • the method may further comprise administering the test to each individual after the treatment period, wherein the selected individuals further exhibit an improved performance during a majority of the tests administered during the treatment period as compared to the test administered after the treatment period.
  • this embodiment selects subjects who show a pattern of change that is consistent with a treatment response, but does not define the full characteristics of that response.
  • the criterion itself does not specify the amount of improvement nor does it specify that the improvement must be stable over time.
  • a relatively highly selective criterion for a likely treatment responder would be: a subject with a faster walking speed for at least three (i.e., three or four) of the four visits during the double blind treatment period compared to the maximum value for all five of the non-treatment visits.
  • the four visits before initiation of double-blind treatment provide an initial baseline against which to measure the consistency of response during the four treatment visits.
  • the inclusion of the follow-up visit as an additional component of the comparison was found valuable primarily in excluding those subjects who did not show the expected loss of improvement after coming off the drug. These are likely to be subjects who happened by chance to have improved in their MS symptoms around the time of treatment initiation, but whose improvement did not reverse on drug discontinuation because it was actually unrelated to drug.
  • incorporating the follow-up visit as part of the criterion may help to exclude false positives, if the TW25 speed remains high at follow-up.
  • this responder criterion was met by 8.5%, 35.3%, 36.0%, and 38.6% of the subjects in the placebo, 10 mg, 15 mg, and 20 mg b.i.d. treatment groups, respectively, showing a highly significant and consistent difference between placebo and drug treatment groups.
  • More detailed analyses were performed comparing the pooled Fampridine-SR. treated groups against the placebo-treated group. The full results of this analysis for study arc described in the following sections. These show that the responder group so identified experienced a >25% average increase in walking speed over the treatment period and that this increase did not diminish across the treatment period.
  • the responder group also showed an increase in Subject Global Impression score and an improvement in score on the MSWS- 12.
  • a baseline was established showing compai ability among the respondert analysis groups, and then analyses were perfomed on the baseline demogiaphic variables, key neurological characteristics and the relevant efficacy variables at baseline.
  • the iesponder analysis groups were comparable for all deinogiaphic and baseline characteristics variables, with certain exceptions
  • a method of selecting individuals based on responsiveness to a treatment is derived from executing a range disparity distribution and applying it in a clinical trial setting
  • a novel "range disparity" (RD) distribution is used to compute the probability that a given number of items (such as patients) in one set tall outside the range, on a give measure, of all the items (patients) in another set.
  • urn Y For urn Y to have exactly two straws larger than the largest straw in urn X, urn Y must first have: o the largest straw to begin with (a 5/10 chance); o the second largest straw among the remaining 9 (a 4/9 chance); o the 5 straws in urn X must be largest among the remaining 8 straws (a 5/8 chance).
  • the pioblem can be generalized foi uin X to contain S-straws and Y urn to contain T-straws This leads to the following definition
  • This disti ibution has numerous potential applications for example, in a clinical trial where measurements of a particular aspect of disease show essentially random variation with time.
  • the RDD provides a simple and effective way to identify individuals who show an unexpected range-shift in either the positive Oi negative direction, indicating either a consistent benefit or a consistent worsening that is temporally associated with the treatment.
  • Consistency of benefit from treatment would be expected to be a more effective measure of response (i.e. of causality) than simply examining the magnitude of change between the average baseline visit and the average treatment visit. This is because a meaningful, consistent benefit may be small in magnitude and a large random deviation, occurring during any individual measurement, can have a substantial but ultimately meaningless effect on the average value across a small number of sample measurements.
  • the identification of a consistent response as represented by 4 or 5 of the on-drug measurements as better than the best off-drug measurement provides a particularly clear criterion for a responder analysis.
  • a traditional responder analysis would establish an arbitrary level of average change (e.g. 10%, 20%) above which a trial subject would qualify as a responder.
  • a criterion of consistency based on the RDD can be clinically meaningful (being based on consist relationship to treatment over time), statistically appropriate (based on a threshold of statistical probability, here approximately 2.5% for a one-sided criterion.) and it can be calculated a priori, given the trial design.
  • Each X and Y measurement addresses the same outcome variable: Z (we use X and Y to differentiate measurements during different time-periods: off-drug and on-drug).
  • Example 2 Practical experience: The following is based on data from a clinical trial that examined the effects of a novel treatment in improving walking speed in patients diagnosed with a chronic disease and was designed with 5 off-drug and 4 on-drug assessments of walking speed. Subjects were randomized to receive active drug or placebo in a 3:1 ratio. For a given patient, if we let Y represent the number of on-drug measured walking speeds that are faster than the fastest off-drug walking speed and assume Y follows the RDD we have:
  • Table 1 Table showing the theoretical distribution of on-drug visits with faster walking speeds than the fastest off-drug walking speed using the RDD.
  • response to treatment was defined as a faster walking speed in at least 3 of the 4 on-drug visits compared to the fastest speed measured during the 5 off-drug visits.
  • response to treatment was defined as a faster walking speed in at least 3 of the 4 on-drug visits compared to the fastest speed measured during the 5 off-drug visits.
  • intcnt-to- treat patients included in the primary efficacy analysis (47 placebo and 158 active treatment). Table 2 below summarizes the key study les ⁇ lt.
  • Table 2 Table showing the percentage of responders, selected for consistent improvement in walking speed in the placebo-treated and active-drug treated groups. P-value calculated from the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel test, controlling for study center.
  • the placebo responder rate (8.5%) was very close to the theoretical responder rate of about 5%. Indeed, when we examine the frequency distribution for the placebo-treated group in Graph A, below, we see that the observed distribution of better on- drug measurements was similar to that expected from the RDD, thereby suggesting negligible temporal or placebo effects in this trial. On the other hand, the distribution of measurements in the actively treated group was significantly different from both the placebo and the theoretical distributions. In particular, there were large differences in the proportion of subjects showing no measurements faster than the fastest off-drug measurement and showing 3 or 4 faster visits. This indicates that active treatment but not placebo treatment is associated with more consistent improvement than would be expected from the RDD, and that our selection of the response criterion based on statistical probability is reasonable in practice.
  • Figure 4(d) Applying the consistent (lepeated measures) response analysis to the same data from Figure 4 (b) selects out a non-responder population that is close to the placebo-treated group in its distribution Only 4 subjects in the placebo group rcgistered as lesponders, for an 8 5% false positive rate The response rate in the daig-treated group was 37 2% The drug-placebo response differential was therefore 28 7%, similar to the 29 3% seen with the traditional responder analysis approach shown in Figure 4 (b) However, in this case there was a lower frequency of false positives in the placebo gioup, and the difference between treatment group response rates was statistically significant (p ⁇ 0 001 , Table 1 ) [0054]
  • Example 3 The application of this distribution is particularly powerful in the context of a repeated measures response analysis of the kind provided by Example 2.
  • the range disparity distribution therefore describes the expected behavior of two small samples from a common population. Specifically, it defines the probability that any given number of values in one sample from that population will fall outside the range of values in the other sample, in either the positive or negative direction.
  • This distribution can be applied to novel forms of small-sample statistical analysis. An example of application to a repeated measures response analysis in a clinical trial is described. The definition of a consistent response, based on the sample range disparity distribution, improves the sensitivity as well as the statistical and clinical meaningful ⁇ ess of such an analysis.
  • Example 4 In addition, the method, system and software of the present invention was utilized in the testing of Fampridinc-SR on walking in people with multiple sclerosis (MS) during a Phase 3 trial, the results of which were announced on September 25, 2006. In particular, this Phase 3 clinical trial of Fampi ⁇ dine-SR on walking in people with multiple sclerosis (MS) was a confirmation of the pertinence of the inventive approach. In utilizing the method, system and software of the present invention, statistical significance was achieved on all three efficacy criteria defined in the Special Protocol Assessment (SPA) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
  • SPA Special Protocol Assessment
  • FDA Food and Drug Administration
  • This example provides an embodiment of a method of treating subjects with a sustained release fampridine formulation and a responcler analysis of the present invention.
  • This study was designed to investigate the safety and efficacy of three dose levels of Fampridine-SR, 10 mg b i d., 15 nig b.i.d., and 20 mg b.i.d. in subjects with clinically definite MS.
  • the primary efficacy endpoint was an increase, relative to baseline, in walking speed, on the Timed 25 Foot Walk.
  • subjects were to enter into a two-week single-blind placebo run-in period for the purpose of establishing baseline levels of function.
  • subjects were . to be randomized to one of four treatment groups (Placebo or Fampridine-SR 10 mg, 15 mg, 20 mg) and begin two weeks of double-blind dose-escalation in the active drug treatment groups (B, C and D).
  • Group A were to receive placebo throughout the study.
  • Subjects in the 10 mg (Group B) arm of the study took a dose of 10 mg approximately every 12 hours during both weeks of the escalation phase.
  • the 15 mg (Group C) and 20 mg (Group D) close subjects took a dose of 10 mg approximately every 12 hours during the first week of the escalation phase and titrated up to 15 mg b.i.d. in the second week. Subjects were to be instructed to adhere to an "every 12 hour" dosing schedule. Each subject was advised to take the medication at approximately the same time each day throughout the study; however, different subjects were on differing medication schedules (e.g., 7 AM and 7 PM; or 9 AM and 9 PM). After two weeks, the subjects were to return to the clinic at Visit 3 for the start of the stable dose treatment period. The first dose of the double-blind treatment phase at the final target dose (placebo b.i.d.
  • the primary measure of efficacy was improvement in average walking speed, relative to the baseline period (placebo run-in), using the Timed 25 Foot Walk from the Multiple Sclerosis Functional Composite Score (MSFC). This is a quantitative measure of lower extremity function. Subjects were instructed to use whatever ambulation aids they normally use and to walk as quickly as they could from one end to the other end of a clearly marked 25-foot course. Other efficacy measures included the LEMMT, to estimate muscle strength bilaterally in four groups of muscles: hip flexors, knee flexors, knee extensors, and ankle dorsiflcxors. The test was perfonncd at the Screening Visit and at Study Visits 1 , 2, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 1 1 .
  • Protocol Specified Responder Analysis To supplement the primary analysis, a categorical "responder" analysis was also conducted. Successful response was defined for each subject as improvement in walking speed (percent change from baseline) of at least 20%. Subjects who dropped out prior to the stable dose period were considered non-responders. The proportions of protocol specified responders were compared among treatment groups using the Cochran- Mantel-Haenszel test, controlling for center.
  • (post hoc) responders were compared against the (post hoc) non-responders, on the subjective variables: (i) Change from baseline in MSWS- 12 over the double-blind; (ii) SGl over the double-blind; and (iii) Change from baseline in the CGl over the double-blind; to determine if subjects with consistently improved walking speeds during the double-blind could perceive improvement relative to those subjects who did not have consistently improved walking speeds.
  • differences between responder status classification (responder or non- responder) were compared using an ANOVA model with effects for responder status and center.
  • Results A total of 206 subjects were randomized into the study: 47 were assigned to placebo, 52 to 10 mg bid Fampridine-SR (10 mg bid), 50 to 15 mg bid Fampridine-SR (15 mg bid), and 57 to 20 mg bid Fampridine-SR (20 mg bid). The disposition of subjects is presented in Table 5 below.
  • Percentages are based on the number of randomized subjects. All 206 randomized subjects took at least one dose of study medication and were included in the safety population. One subject (subject# 010/07 I O mg bid group) was excluded from the ITT population (lost to follow-up after 8 days of placebo run-in). A total of 1 1 subjects discontinued from the study.
  • the population consisted of 63.6% females and 36.4% males. The majority of the subjects were Caucasian (92.2%), followed by Black (4.9%), Hispanic (1.5%), those classified as 'Other' (1.0%), and Asian/Pacific Islander (0.5%).
  • the mean age, weight, and height of the subjects were 49.8 years (range: 28-69 years), 74.44 kilograms (range: 41.4- 145.5 kilograms), and 168.84 centimeters (range: 137.2-200.7 centimeters), respectively. Most of the subjects (52.4%) had a diagnosis type of secondary progressive with about equal amounts of relapsing remitting (22.8%) and primary progressive (24.8%) subjects.
  • the mean duration of disease was 12.00 years (range: 0.1-37.5 years) while the mean Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) at screening was 5.77 units (range: 2.5-6.5 units).
  • the treatment groups were comparable with respect to all baseline demographic and disease characteristic variables.
  • # The treatment sample sizes presented in the figure legend represent the number of ITT subjects. Sample sizes at individual time points may be smaller than those in the ITT population due to dropouts or missed assessments.
  • Results for the primary efficacy variable are summarized in Figure 3.
  • the timed 25 foot walk showed a trend toward increased speed during the stable dose period for all three dose groups, though the average improvement declined during the treatment period, as shown in Figure 3.
  • the mean percent changes in average walking speed during the 12- week stable dose period were 2.5%, 5.5%, 8.4%, and 5.8% for the placebo, 10 mg bid, 15 mg bid, and 20 mg bid groups, respectively.
  • the treatment sample sizes presented at individual time points may be smaller than those in the ITT population due to dropouts or missed assessments.
  • results for the average change in LEMMT during the 12-week stable dose period lelutivc to baseline aie suinmarizcd in Hguie 6 The mean changes in overall LEMMT during the 12- week stable dose period were -0 05 units, 0 10 units, 0 13 units, and 0 05 units for the placebo, 10 mg bid, 15 mg bid, and 20 mg bid gioups, iespectively Improvements in LEMMT were significantly greater in the 10 mg bid and 15 mg bid groups compared to the placebo group, there was no significant difference between the 20 mg bid group and the placebo group
  • treatment sample sizes presented in the treatment heading represent the number of ITT subjects. Sample sizes for individual variables may be smaller due to dropouts or missed assessments.
  • the p-values are Dunnett-adjusted. While pre-planned analyses of the pnmaiy efficacy cndpoint piovided insufficient evidence of treatment benefits foi any of the Fampudme-SR doses, subsequent analysis revealed the existence of a subset of subjects who responded to the drug with clinical meaningfulness These subjects exhibited walking speeds while on drug that were consistently bettet than the fastest walking speeds measured when the subjects were not taking active drug
  • the post hoc iesponder iates based on consistency of improved walking speeds were significantly higher in all three active dose groups (35, 36 and 39%) compaied to placebo (9%, p ⁇ 0.006 for each dose group, adjusting foi multiple compai isons) as shown in I igure 7
  • the 62 iesponders (58 fampndine and 4 placebo) were compared against the 143 non-icsponders (100 fampndine and 43 placebo) on the subjective variables to determine if subjects with consistently impioved walking speeds during the double-blind could perceived benefit relative to those subjects who did not ha ⁇ e consistently impioved walking speeds
  • the iesults aie summarized in Figure 9 and indicate that consistency in walking speed had clinical meaningfulness foi the subjects in this study since the responders had (over the double-blind period) significantly better changes from baseline in MSWS- 12 and significantly better subjective global scores
  • the rcspondcis were iatcd marginally better than the non-respondcis by the clinicians during the double-blind
  • responders experienced clinically meaningful improvements in their MS symptoms, and tientinent with fampndine significantly increased the chances of such ⁇ response
  • Figure 10 and Table 12 summarizes the percent changes in walking speed at each double-blind visit by rcsponder analysis giouping
  • results for the fampi idine non-responders are also illustrated and show that there was, and could be, some worsening in walking speeds after 12-weeks when a non-responder is treated with fampiidine
  • the imptovement was stable ( ⁇ 3%) across 14 weeks of treatment, and was associated with improvement in two global measures (Subject Global Impression and Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale- 12)
  • the four placebo responders showed a 19% lmpiovement in walking speed but there were too few subjects in this group for meaningful statistical comparison Response status was not significantly related to
  • the treatment sample sizes presented at individual time points may be smaller than those in the ITT population due to dropouts or missed assessments.
  • # The treatment sample sizes presented in the figure legend represent the number of ITT subjects. Sample sizes at individual time points may be smaller due to dropouts or missed assessments.
  • Figure 1 1 and Table 13 summarize the changes in LEMMT at each double-blind visit by responder analysis grouping.
  • results for the fampridine non-responders are also illustrated and show that there was, and could be, some significant improvement in leg strength when non-responder is treated with fampridine. This suggests that although a clinically meaningful response can be linked to about 37% of subjects treated with Fampridine-SR, additional subjects may have functional improvements on variables other than walking speed.
  • Table 13 Summary of percent change in LEMMT at each double-blind visit by responder analysis grouping.
  • FR Fampridine Responders
  • FNR Fampridinc Non-responders.
  • treatment sample sizes presented at individual time points may be smaller than those in the ITT population due to dropouts or missed assessments.
  • Treatment sample sizes presented in the figure legend represent the number of ITT subjects. Sample sizes at individual time points may be smaller due to dropouts or missed assessments.
  • Table 14 Summary of change in overall Ashwoi th score at each double-blind visit by responder analysis grouping.
  • the treatment sample sizes pi esented at individual time points may be smaller than those in the ITT population due to dropouts or missed assessments.
  • a responder analysis based on consistency of improvement provides a sensitive, meaningful approach to measuring effects on the timed 25 foot walk and may be used as a primary endpoint for future trials. This data suggest that for responsive subjects (approximately 37%), treatment with fampridine at doses of 10-20 mg bid . produces substantial and persistent improvement in walking.
  • PASAT Paced Auditoiy Serial Addition Test
  • CGI Lower Extierruty Manual Muscle Testing
  • SGI Subject Global Impression
  • MSQLI Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life Inventory
  • Consistency of improvement in walking speed was defined (post hoc) as achieving walking speed during at least three (i.e. the majority) of the four "on drug” visits that was faster than the maximum speed measured din ing the five "off-drug” visits (four prior, one follow-up). The selection of this criterion was supported by observation of the distribution of faster "on drug” visits between the fampridine and placebo-treated groups (Figure 2)
  • Figure 2 Histogram to show the proportion ⁇ f subjects with a given number of "on drug” visits in which they achieved faster walking speed than the fastest of their five “off drug” visits. Fampridine-treated subjects showed more cases in which there were 3 or 4 faster on drug visits and less cases with no visits faster. The distribution of visits foi the placebo-treated group is close to that predicted for sampling of random variability from visit to visit.
  • a subset of patients in each tieatment group showed consistently improved walking speed while on drug: 8.5%, 35.3%, 36.0%, and 38.6% of the subjects in the placebo, 10 mg, 15 mg, and 20 mg b.i.d. treatment groups, respectively, as shown in Figure 3.
  • Dr. Andrew D. Goodman is a consultant to Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. Financial support for this study was provided by Acorda Therapeutics, Inc.
  • Acoida Therapeutics has sponsored two Phase 2, prospective, randomized, placebo- controlled clinical trials to evaluate the effects of Fampridine-SR on lower extremity motor function in people with multiple sclerosis (MS). Both trials demonstrated statistically significant improvement in leg strength, measured with the standard manual muscle test (LEMMT). Both trials showed improvements in walking speed based on the Timed 25 Foot Walk (TW25) which were statistically significant on the basis of post-hoc analyses. Increasing muscle weakness and ambulatory deficits are two of the most clinically significant aspects of this progressive disease. Fampridine is the first and only drug to date that has shown direct beneficial effects on functional deficits of walking and weakness in MS (as distinct from anti-inflammatory drugs used to promote recovery from acute relapse).
  • MS-F202 Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale- 12
  • MSWS-12 Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale- 12
  • Acorda Therapeutics has taken these recommendations into account and has revised its development plan to address the issues raised by the Division.
  • Acorda now proposes to perform an adequately powered, double blind, randomized, placebo- controlled study to compare the effects of 10 mg b.i.d. Fampridine-SR against placebo on walking in patients with MS.
  • the overall design of this study will be similar to that of study MS-F202, except for the dose comparison aspect of the previous trial, and will include a 14-weck treatment period.
  • this study will employ a responder analysis as a primary endpoint.
  • the placebo-treated group showed a clear pattern of exponential decline in numbers of subjects with higher numbers of "positive" visits. This is what would be expected from a random process of variability (a simple computer simulation of the random sampling process involved shows the same pattern of response - Fig. Al in the Supplemental Tables and Figures).
  • the pattern of response in the Fampridine-SR treated group strongly diverged from this distribution; much larger numbers of Fampridine-SR treated subjects showed three or four visits with higher walking speeds than the maximum speed of all five iion-trcalmcnt visits and less than half of the expected proportion had no visits with higher speeds.
  • a lelatively highly selective criterion for a likely treatment responder would be: a subject with a faster walking speed for at least three (i.e., three or four) of the four visits during the double blind treatment period compared to the maximum value for all five of the non-treatment visits.
  • the four visits before initiation of double-blind treatment provide an initial baseline against which to measure the consistency of response during the four treatment visits.
  • the inclusion of the follow-up visit as an additional component of the comparison was found valuable primarily in excluding those subjects who did not show the expected loss of improvement after coming off the drug. These are likely to be subjects who happened by chance to have improved in their MS symptoms around the time of treatment initiation, but whose improvement did not reverse on drug discontinuation because it was actually unrelated to drug.
  • incorporating the follow-up visit as part of the criterion may help to exclude false positives, if the TW25 speed remains high at follow-up.
  • this responder criterion selects subjects who show a pattern of change that is consistent with a treatment response, but does not define the full characteristics of that response.
  • the criterion itself does not specify the amount of improvement nor does it specify that the improvement must be stable over time. For example, a progressive decline in effect during the course of the study period, even one resulting in speeds slower than the maximum non-treatment value, would not be excluded by the criterion; as a specific example, changes from the maximum non- treatment value of, respectively, +20%, +5%, + 1 % and -30% during the double blind treatment period would qualify as a response under the criterion, but would actually show a net negative average change for the entire period, poor stability and a negative endpoint.
  • Post-hoc analyses of studies MS-F202 and MS-F201 indicate that we may expect responders defined by consistency of effect also to demonstrate increased magnitude and stability of benefit, but this must be determined in a well-controlled trial in which this responder criterion is pre-defined.
  • Figure 2 compares changes in walking speed foi the Responder and Non-Responder groups between the Fampndine-SR and placebo-treated groups
  • the Fampridine-SR Responder group showed an average increase in speed of 0 49 ft/sec compared to 0 01 ft/sec in the two Non-Responder groups
  • the foui Placebo Responder subjects showed an intermediate average change in walking speed (0 33 ft/sec) but there were too few subjects in this group for meaningful comparison
  • There was no difference between the groups at baseline in baseline walking speed, demographics, or neurological chaiacter istics see Table A2, A3, and A4 in the Supplemental Tables and Figures
  • the average percent improvement from baseline in walking speed during the double blind period was 27% for the Fampridine-SR Responder groups, compared to 1 and 2% in the Placebo and Fampridine-SR Non-Responders, respectively, as shown in Figure 3.
  • Fig. 3 Average percent change in walking speed during the double-blind treatment period, compared to average pre-randomizalion value, by responder classification.
  • Fig. 4 Percent change in walking speed, compared to average pre-randomization values, by responder classification at each study visit during the double-blind treatment period.
  • the upper graph shows only the Fampridine-SR Responder group and the Fampridine-SR and Placebo Non-Responders
  • the lower graph includes the Placebo Responders, showing the large confidence intervals which would otherwise obscure the display of confidence intervals foi the other groups
  • the response criterion also allows us to explore the beneficial defects of this change as reported by the subjects on two global mcasui cs, the Subject Global Impression (SGl) and Multiple Sclerosis Waling Scale- 12 (MSWS- 12), as illustrated in Figures 5 and 6, below.
  • SGl Subject Global Impression
  • MSWS- 12 Multiple Sclerosis Waling Scale- 12
  • the Responders showed a higher average score on the SGI during the double-blind treatment period. These SGI data indicate that Responders were able to distinguish a positive benefit associated with their improvement in walking speed. A larger sample would be required to confirm this difference statistically given the highly variable nature of responses on these variables (see Fig. A3 and A4 in the Supplemental Tables and Figures).
  • Fig. 5 Average Subject Global Impression score by responder classification during the double- blind treatment period A score of 4 is a response of "neutral/mi ⁇ ed" on a 7-point 1err ⁇ ble(l ) to Delighted (7) scale
  • Fig 6 Average change from baseline (Visil 0) in MSWS- 12 score during (he double-blind treatment period, by responder classification
  • the MSWS-12 scoie has a maximum value of 100 for the most severe impact of MS upon ambulatory function in daily life functions
  • this responder analysis illuminates chaiacteristics of the response that are not clear from analysis of the whole treatment population.
  • the benefit on walking in Responders appears to be both substantial, with an average improvement of more than 25%, and quantitatively consistent over the 3-month period of the treatment
  • the Responders appear to iegister then impressions of clinical benefit on both the SGI and MSWS-12.
  • Acorda Therapeutics proposes to perform a new prospective study, based closely on the design of MS-F202.
  • a dose of 10 mg b.i.d. has been chosen since there was little evidence of a dose-related increase in response. Therefore, the lowest dose has been chosen in order to minimize adverse events, including, hopefully, the risk of seizures.
  • This new study is expected to demonstrate significance on the responder analysis, based on consistency of response over time. It is also expected to demonstrate sustained increase in walking speed in Responders compared to Non-Responders. The study may also demonstrate improvement in Responders on the global measures (SGI and MSWS- 12). In the event that the study is not able to demonstrate clear separation of Responders on these global measures, it is expected to provide additional information on variability and sensitivity of the instruments to changes in walking speed. This will be useful in further assessing the potential validity of these measures in this context and may permit appropriate power calculations for subsequent studies.
  • the simulation involved computer generation of 100,000 trains of 9 random numbers and testing the frequency with which numbers 5-8 were larger than the maximum of the numbers 1-4 and 9 in each tram
  • the model predicts an exponential decline in probability of larger numbers of positive visits, and the observed values were close to this distribution
  • the slightly higher observed values may relate to the trend for increase in mean walking speed over the course of the trial in the placebo group (see Fig. A2)
  • Both the SGI and the MSWS- 12 show more variability (spread) and less overall stability (slope) with respect to baseline than the walking speed on the TW25 and leg strength on the LEMMT scale
  • the SGI is restricted to integer values, and the plot indicates the iange of values and the frequency by number at points with frequency > 1
  • Fig A4 Scatterplol to show the relationship between the MSWS- 12 score and walking speed, measured with the TW25 for the entire placebo treated group over nil four study visits at which the instrument was used
  • the MSWS- 12 score shows increasing severity of impact on walking speed with higher numbers
  • a normal walking speed is 5 5 6 ft/sec
  • Keywords probability distribution, central treatment arm who had tumor burden tendency range, sample distributions, reductions greater than the largest reduction in exceptional values the standard therapy arm For this situation, the range of the efficacy measure may provide
  • Example 3.1 Suppose we have a clinical trial testing of items from the two plants may be such that for each subject, we have S off- available. If it has been determined that in a treatment measurements and T on-treatment sample of 5 items from each plant the breaking measurements for a particular outcome strength of more than 2 of the ilems from plant variable. If we define a random variable Y as A falls below the range of the 5 tested from the number of on-treatment measurements that plant B we would have support for the are better than the best off-treatment suspicion regarding a difference between the measurement, then based on the RDD we plants. More specifically, we would know that could compute the probability distribution of there is less than a 2.5% chance, on the basis Y.

Landscapes

  • Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
  • Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
  • Epidemiology (AREA)
  • General Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
  • Medical Informatics (AREA)
  • Primary Health Care (AREA)
  • Public Health (AREA)
  • Investigating Or Analysing Biological Materials (AREA)

Abstract

L'invention concerne un procédé pour déterminer des sujets réactifs dans des environnements de test clinique qui implique, entre autres, la détection d'une réponse au traitement en utilisant de petits nombres de mesures de variables de résultats variant au hasard chez des sujets d'essai clinique individuels, et l'analyse des mesures de manière à éliminer les variables perturbantes, comme la variabilité spontanée de la population.
PCT/US2010/000298 2009-02-03 2010-02-03 Procédé, appareil et logiciel pour identifier des sujets réactifs dans un environnement clinique Ceased WO2010090730A1 (fr)

Applications Claiming Priority (2)

Application Number Priority Date Filing Date Title
US14968109P 2009-02-03 2009-02-03
US61/149,681 2009-02-03

Publications (1)

Publication Number Publication Date
WO2010090730A1 true WO2010090730A1 (fr) 2010-08-12

Family

ID=42542331

Family Applications (1)

Application Number Title Priority Date Filing Date
PCT/US2010/000298 Ceased WO2010090730A1 (fr) 2009-02-03 2010-02-03 Procédé, appareil et logiciel pour identifier des sujets réactifs dans un environnement clinique

Country Status (1)

Country Link
WO (1) WO2010090730A1 (fr)

Cited By (3)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US8007826B2 (en) 2003-12-11 2011-08-30 Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. Sustained release aminopyridine composition
US8354437B2 (en) 2004-04-09 2013-01-15 Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. Method of using sustained release aminopyridine compositions
CN103614427A (zh) * 2013-11-13 2014-03-05 福建师范大学 利用秸秆水解液发酵生产二十二碳六烯酸的方法

Citations (5)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US20040015337A1 (en) * 2002-01-04 2004-01-22 Thomas Austin W. Systems and methods for predicting disease behavior
WO2007035958A2 (fr) * 2005-09-23 2007-03-29 Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. Procede, appareil et logiciel d'identification de sujets repondants dans un environnement clinique
US20080064934A1 (en) * 2002-10-15 2008-03-13 Medtronic, Inc. Clustering of recorded patient neurological activity to determine length of a neurological event
US20080305453A1 (en) * 2007-06-08 2008-12-11 Align Technology, Inc. Treatment progress tracking and recalibration
US20090055221A1 (en) * 2007-08-24 2009-02-26 Brian David Loftus Health Profile Database Management System

Patent Citations (5)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US20040015337A1 (en) * 2002-01-04 2004-01-22 Thomas Austin W. Systems and methods for predicting disease behavior
US20080064934A1 (en) * 2002-10-15 2008-03-13 Medtronic, Inc. Clustering of recorded patient neurological activity to determine length of a neurological event
WO2007035958A2 (fr) * 2005-09-23 2007-03-29 Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. Procede, appareil et logiciel d'identification de sujets repondants dans un environnement clinique
US20080305453A1 (en) * 2007-06-08 2008-12-11 Align Technology, Inc. Treatment progress tracking and recalibration
US20090055221A1 (en) * 2007-08-24 2009-02-26 Brian David Loftus Health Profile Database Management System

Cited By (8)

* Cited by examiner, † Cited by third party
Publication number Priority date Publication date Assignee Title
US8007826B2 (en) 2003-12-11 2011-08-30 Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. Sustained release aminopyridine composition
US8663685B2 (en) 2003-12-11 2014-03-04 Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. Sustained release aminopyridine composition
US9918973B2 (en) 2003-12-11 2018-03-20 Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. Sustained release aminopyridine composition
US11786514B2 (en) 2003-12-11 2023-10-17 Alkermes Pharma Ireland Limited Sustained release aminopyridine composition
US8354437B2 (en) 2004-04-09 2013-01-15 Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. Method of using sustained release aminopyridine compositions
US8440703B2 (en) 2004-04-09 2013-05-14 Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. Methods of using sustained release aminopyridine compositions
US9925173B2 (en) 2004-04-09 2018-03-27 Acorda Therapeutics, Inc. Methods of using sustained release aminopyridine compositions
CN103614427A (zh) * 2013-11-13 2014-03-05 福建师范大学 利用秸秆水解液发酵生产二十二碳六烯酸的方法

Similar Documents

Publication Publication Date Title
de Oliveira Silva et al. Patient education for patellofemoral pain: a systematic review
Pollock et al. Interventions for improving sit‐to‐stand ability following stroke
Chan et al. Efficacy of physical exercise in preventing falls in older adults with cognitive impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Woodford et al. EMG biofeedback for the recovery of motor function after stroke
Forbes et al. Exercise programs for people with dementia
Paltamaa et al. Measures of physical functioning predict self-reported performance in self-care, mobility, and domestic life in ambulatory persons with multiple sclerosis
Martinsson et al. Amphetamines for improving recovery after stroke
Bowman et al. Feasibility and safety of the 30‐second sit‐to‐stand test delivered via telehealth: an observational study
Stafford et al. Illness beliefs about heart disease and adherence to secondary prevention regimens
Motahari-Nezhad et al. Digital biomarker–based interventions: systematic review of systematic reviews
Manca et al. Relationship between health‐related quality of life, pain, and functional disability in neuropathic pain patients with failed back surgery syndrome
Chan et al. Minimal clinically important difference of four commonly used balance assessment tools in individuals after total knee arthroplasty: a prospective cohort study
Steeves Bench to bedside: challenges of clinical translation
EP1940285B1 (fr) Procede, appareil et logiciel d'identification de sujets repondants dans un environnement clinique
Ampiah et al. Operationalisation of a biopsychosocial approach for the non‐pharmacological management of patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain in low‐and middle‐income countries: A systematic review
Kuptniratsaikul et al. Is four-week underwater treadmill exercise regimen compared to home exercise efficacious for pain relief and functional improvement in obese patients with knee osteoarthritis? A randomized controlled trial
Sun et al. Relationship of meeting physical activity guidelines with quality-adjusted life-years
Beauchamp et al. Do exercise interventions improve participation in life roles in older adults? A systematic review and meta-analysis
Seid et al. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation for people with Parkinson’s disease: a systematic review and meta‐analysis
Kwok et al. Evaluation of the Frails' Fall Efficacy by Comparing Treatments (EFFECT) on reducing fall and fear of fall in moderately frail older adults: study protocol for a randomised control trial
Salonoja et al. Withdrawal of psychotropic drugs decreases the risk of falls requiring treatment
Chang et al. Relationships between changes in forward bending, pain catastrophizing, and pain self-efficacy during cognitive functional therapy for people with chronic low back pain
WO2010090730A1 (fr) Procédé, appareil et logiciel pour identifier des sujets réactifs dans un environnement clinique
Oh et al. Nurse-led computerized cognitive training for mild cognitive impairment: a preliminary study
Denegar et al. Evidence-based sports medicine: outcomes instruments for active populations

Legal Events

Date Code Title Description
121 Ep: the epo has been informed by wipo that ep was designated in this application

Ref document number: 10738852

Country of ref document: EP

Kind code of ref document: A1

NENP Non-entry into the national phase

Ref country code: DE

122 Ep: pct application non-entry in european phase

Ref document number: 10738852

Country of ref document: EP

Kind code of ref document: A1